District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11670

#1

Apr 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11668877 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Sachin LNU. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Immigration Documents)(Shaw, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#2

Apr 10, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (CEH) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#3

Apr 10, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#4

Apr 10, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (SEC) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

Apr 10, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Apr 13, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 13, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#7

Apr 13, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing nunc pro tunc [ 6 ] MOTION for Extension of Time to April 15, 2026 to File Response/Reply to Habeas Petition. (SEC) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#8

Apr 15, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#9

Apr 20, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#10

Apr 22, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ] on April 9, 2026. On April 10, the court entered its Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal [ 3 ].On April 15, 2026, Respondents filed their Response [ 8 ], in which they assert that Petitioner’s detention is “[a]uthorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)” but acknowledge that, “should the court follow its reasoning in Doe[ v. Moniz, 800 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Mass. 2025)]” and similar cases, “it would reach the same conclusion that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226[.]” Resp. 3 [ 8 ]. In the alternative, Respondents argue that Petitioner, who “was recently arrested and charged with Breaking and Entering for a Felony” in Massachusetts, “falls squarely within” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention provision. Id. at 4.Petitioner has since informed the court that his pending criminal charges were “dismissed for failure to prosecute” on April 16, 2026. Reply 4 [ 9 ]; see Reply Ex. 1 [[9-1]]. In light of this development, no later than April 24, 2026, Respondents shall inform the court whether they still maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and, if so, provide the legal authority for their position.(SEC) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

Order

#11

Apr 24, 2026

Extension of Time

#12

Apr 24, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to 4/28/2026 to Respond to Court Order (ECF 10 ). (GAM) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

Apr 24, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#13

Apr 28, 2026

Response to Court Order

#14

Apr 30, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#15

Jun 08, 2026

Order

#16

Jun 10, 2026

Memorandum & Order

#17

Jun 10, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: In light of the court’s June 10, 2026 Memorandum and Order [Doc. No. 16 ], Petitioner’s Motion for Order on Fully Briefed Petition, or, in the Alternative, for [a] Status Conference [Doc. No. 15 ] is DENIED as moot. (MAP) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Order on Motion for Order

#18

Jun 22, 2026

Status Report

#19

Jul 16, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#20

Jul 20, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On July 17, 2026, Petitioner Sachin LNU filed a Motion to Enforce the Court’s June 10, 2026 [Habeas] Order [ 19 ], in which he asserts that the bond hearing he received on June 15, 2026, was constitutionally inadequate. He seeks either a new bond hearing or immediate release from custody. Respondents must file any response to Petitioner’s Motion [ 19 ] within the fourteen-day period permitted under Local Rule 7.1. (MAP) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

Order

#21

Aug 03, 2026

Response to Motion

#22

Aug 05, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#23

Aug 28, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On June 10, 2026, the court granted Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ] and ordered that Petitioner be either released or “provide[d] a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021).” See Order 12 [ 16 ]. On June 15, 2026, the Chelmsford Immigration Court held a bond hearing and denied Petitioner bond on the basis that he posed “a flight risk by the preponderance of the evidence and there is no bond amount that will mitigate his risk of flight.” Mot. to Enforce Ex. 1 [[19-1]].Based on the record before this court, the Immigration Court based its “flight risk” determination on a dismissed criminal charge and that Petitioner has minimal avenues for relief. Respondents incorrectly represented to the Immigration Court that Petitioner’s charges were still pending. While the Immigration Court acknowledged the charges “did not result in a conviction,” it also noted that the dismissal of the charges for failure to prosecute does not require “consideration of the guilt.” Opp’n Ex. 1 [[21-1]] (containing the audio recording of Petitioner’s June 15, 2026 bond hearing). This improperly flipped the burden of proof under Hernandez-Lara. Additionally, the Immigration Court strongly considered that Petitioner has “minimal avenues to relief such that he was denied relief by the Immigration Court on April 14, 2026.” Id. This was also improper. See Elec. Order, Tabala v. Wesling, 26-cv-12304-MJJ (D. Mass. July 1, 2026), Dkt. No. 17 (granting motion to enforce where the reasons given for the flight risk determination were that “the respondent has been previously ordered removed” and former “applications for relief have been previously denied” (citation omitted)).Due process requires that the government prove this Petitioner’s “flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence” during a custody redetermination hearing. Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 46. A denial of release based solely on a dismissed criminal charge and a denied asylum application is insufficient as a matter of law.Accordingly, where the Immigration Court did not find that Petitioner posed a danger and found a risk of flight without providing Petitioner with a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing, the court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce [ 19 ] and ORDERS that Petitioner be provided a new, constitutionally-adequate bond hearing before a different immigration judge by no later than September 4, 2026. (MAP) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

Aug 28, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment